New gov’t study finds Fukushima radiation in US marine life

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Ok, so I won't eat 100 pounds of fish a day.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Ok, so I won't eat 100 pounds of fish a day.

You probably shouldn't anyway. The mercury would kill you first.

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys
I agree. Mercury accumulates far more than cesium.
But I do enjoy sashimi.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys
I agree. Mercury accumulates far more than cesium.
But I do enjoy sashimi.

Everything in moderation my friend.

a reply to: Phage

Some elements (radioactive or not) accumulate, some do not. Which elements are you concerned about?

All the ones exposed in the cores during and after the meltdowns. Considering they used seawater as coolant… Our bodies are comprised of elements, the unstable ones, once incorporated into the body are the most concerning. The longest exposure times would come from the longest lived parts, bones and connective tissue.

As has been stated, you are more rightly concerned with mercury levels in seafood than radionuclide levels.

Mercury isn't radioactive is it? Different kettle of fish…

a reply to: Phage

We are exposed to "chronic" radiation on a continuing basis. Our bodies cope with it. It is when those levels get high that problems arise.

You keep discussing external exposure, I am talking about internal lo level radiation from radioactive elements incorporated in to the body. Especially alpha emitters.

The exposures levels are "high" to the cells directly affected by nearby alpha emitters. Thats what makes 'safe levels' a misnomer. Some Alpha emitters aren't readily detectable either, since their decay path is but a few mm. Deep in the bone you would need an extended full body dose measurement with scintillators to determine the level of ongoing exposure. That 'lo level' exposure over time is what may cause cells to mutate and give rise to cancer.

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Hey if you're cool with presenting information out of context and freaking out over words well then stress away about what you just don't get.

I have yet to see you present any 'information'.

but obama said seafood safe and his word is as good as anyones right?... right?

a reply to: JourneymanWelder

Well in this case, it is safe.

Reading the whole thread is a good start for you, even the first page..

a reply to: intrptr

You keep discussing external exposure, I am talking about internal lo level radiation from radioactive elements incorporated in to the body.

Total exposure is total exposure. I received several thousand rads over my course of treatment.

The exposures levels are "high" to the cells directly affected by nearby alpha emitters.

Again, my entire torso was exposed to high levels of radiation. Tell me, how much cesium would I have to ingest to mimic the radiation exposure I received? On each cell of my body?

originally posted by: Phage
Again, my entire torso was exposed to high levels of radiation. Tell me, how much cesium would I have to ingest to mimic the radiation exposure I received? On each cell of my body?

The interior of your torso was not exposed to any alpha rays. Zero...none....zilch. Unless they cut you open to expose that area.

That's the difference between exterior radiation and interior. For the millionth time.

How much cesium would you need to ingest that would be more than zero alpha rays? Any amount........

Unlike the skin on the outside of the body, there is nothing inside us to protect cells and tissues from the potentially damaging effects of alpha and beta particles. Alpha particles can be very hazardous internally because an alpha particle does not travel very far and its energy is deposited within a small volume, increasing the chance of cell death.

www.radiationanswers.org...

a reply to: Phage

Total exposure is total exposure. I received several thousand rads over my course of treatment.

But not all at once. From an external source. The radiation therapy you received was deemed therapeutic (worth the risk) compared to the eventual outcome of the cancer. Killing the body to save it so to speak. The type and measure of radiation you received was different too, in that it was focused on the cancerous tissue, assuming you had tumors.

But You haven't given that much detail about the specific type of cancer, the kind of radiation utilized, etc. As far as how you survived, people survived Hiroshima too.

Rad treatment and a bombs are far different scenarios than radioactive contamination in our food, water and air from multiple reactor meltdowns.

Apples and oranges, my good sir.

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Nice, thanks.